Various forms of devices for holding skis on or above a stationary support such as a work bench to allow for preparation of the ski base and edges are known. Snowboards have become increasingly popular in recent years and, as is the case with skis, snowboards are tuned on a regular basis by many users. Tuning procedures for both skis and snowboards include cleaning, waxing, repair of the base materials, maintenance of the edges, binding mounting and binding adjustment. As with skis and snowboards, bicycles require frequent maintenance and are tuned by many users on an ongoing basis. Bicycle maintenance procedures include cleaning, adjustment, repair and/or replacement of various bicycle component parts. A wide variety of firearms also require periodic maintenance. Examples of firearm maintenance procedures include inspection, cleaning, repair and sighting.
New systems have recently been introduced to facilitate holding both skis and snowboards. Most of the new systems are essentially rests, that is to say a ski or snowboard is placed on a pair of spaced-apart supports as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,893,550 to Lassley and U.S. Pat. No. 6,305,679 to Brill. Lassley describes the use of suction cups to engage the surface of a ski or snowboard. Suction cups as described by Lassley tend to flex when pressure is applied to the base during wax scraping and brushing procedures causing undesirable movement of the ski or snowboard during the tuning process. The suction cups also tend to lose suction or have difficulty keeping a vacuum when there are scratches, irregularities, dust or dirt on the surface of the ski or snowboard, or when the surface of the ski or snowboard is not flat. Brill describes anti-slip pads that rely on friction to hold a ski or snowboard in place when positioned base-up, however relying on adhesion of the anti-slip pads alone is not enough to prevent unwanted movement during the aforementioned wax scraping and brushing procedures.
As snowboards are typically three times wider than skis it is difficult to provide a support wide enough to support the entire width of a snowboard that does not hinder or interfere with base tuning procedures when a relatively narrow ski is placed on the same support. For example, the horizontal cross members of Brill's supporting stand obstruct and prevent base rilling, structuring and/or imprinting tools with flanges of a thickness greater than the thickness of a ski from being drawn down the ski base as required when the ski is resting base up on Brill's stand.
Many skis have a brake including prongs which pivot to a lowered position to dig into the snow and prevent the ski from sliding uncontrolled downhill in the event a ski boot is released from a ski binding. It is preferable when tuning skis having a brake to retract the brake so as not to interfere with tuning procedures. Various devices for holding skis that retract the brake are known. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,663,094 to Weissenborn describes a ski holding apparatus with an intermediate device that secures a ski to a work station while retracting and holding the brake.
It may be preferable with certain types of skis to have the ability to fasten the ski to a holder using the ski binding. One such device is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,919,406 to Bunnell. Bunnell incorporates u-shaped supports allowing the attachment of certain types of cross country, touring and backcountry touring bindings. As is the case with U.S. Pat. No. 6,663,094 to Weissenborn, Bunnell's ski support is limited in its ability as it cannot be used to tune a ski without a binding or hold a ski to facilitate binding mounting. Further disadvantages exist as Bunnell's support is rather large, cumbersome and not very versatile.
It is generally preferable to hold sports equipment including skis, snowboards, bicycles and firearms firmly when performing tuning and maintenance procedures. One mechanical system for holding a snowboard is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,880,817 to Clarke. Clarke employs a sizeable board rest adapted to engage the snowboard threaded inserts and contact the top surface across the width of a snowboard. One disadvantage of Clarke's apparatus is due to the size of the board rest. The snowboard bindings must first be removed in order to mount the support apparatus to the snowboard. Removing the snowboard bindings is time consuming and unnecessary for most tuning procedures. Further, the support apparatus described by Clarke only supports the snowboard in the immediate vicinity of the bindings leaving the snowboard shovel and tail portions unsupported and thereby allowing unwanted flexing and/or movement during tuning procedures. A further disadvantage of Clarke's system is that each board rest does not seem to have any provision to be readily detached from each support member, so it is necessary to re-mount the entire support apparatus to a supporting work surface each time the apparatus is used which is inconvenient and cumbersome.
Clamping devices that employ one fixed jaw and a second moveable jaw to clamp a ski, bicycle or firearm are known. One such ski clamping device is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,826,482 to Tourangeau. Such fixed jaw clamps are not ideal for holding a variety of new wider shaped skis as the ski is typically offset relative to the ski support members when clamped and therefore not centered and unstable when resting on the supports.
Also known are various repair stands for holding bicycles employing clamping devices with one fixed jaw and another movable jaw designed to clamp the circular tubing of a bicycle frame or seat post. Most of these stands are placed on a ground support surface and employ a support member extending vertically relative to the ground surface to establish a location to receive a load such as a clamp arm allowing a bicycle to hang off the support structure. A mechanical clamp located at the distal end of the clamp arm is typically employed to hold the bicycle frame top tube or seat post thereby suspending the bicycle above the ground and away from the support structure so as to allow free movement of the bicycle wheels. One such bicycle stand is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,996,814 to Workman et al. Recent performance enhancing changes to bicycle frames including the introduction of non-circular square, rectangular, oval, asymmetric teardrop and other new aerodynamic frame tubes and seat post cross-sections have made clamping a wide variety of frames difficult and impractical.
A repair stand holding the bicycle forks and bottom bracket shell as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,497,967 to Gantois addresses some of the problems holding bicycle frames. Gantois describes a folding repair stand allowing a bicycle to be supported by its crank axle holder and fork. Disadvantages to Gantois' stand are apparent as the transversely extending shaft used to mount a fork does not have any provision to be readily detached and/or interchanged with longer or shorter shafts. As rear bicycle wheel axles are typically wider than front bicycle wheel axles it is necessary to utilize at least two different shaft lengths on a support to hold both front and rear bicycle fork ends so maintenance and repair procedures can be performed on the entire bicycle. Also, as a result of recent performance enhancements to the bicycle frame bottom bracket, particularly the introduction of integrated bottom bracket designs where bottom bracket bearings are placed directly in the frame itself, the static crank axle support Gantois describes does not support a wide variety of new bottom bracket shells with non-circular cross sections. Further, Gantois's stand is not height adjustable so as to allow vertical adjustment of the bicycle to bring specific areas of a bicycle into easier reach of the worker, and the generally upright position of the bicycle relative to the stand changes depending on the size of bicycle frame being held which is undesirable when work is performed on a variety of bicycles. In general the bicycle support stands mentioned above are expensive, cumbersome and not very versatile.
There are several clamping devices used to hold firearms employing fixed jaw clamps. U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,960 to Knitt describes a firearm support assembly having a special type of vise holding the gunstock where a bolt pulls the moveable jaw towards a fixed jaw. A disadvantage of Knitt's vise is that the position of the firearm relative to the support changes depending on the thickness of gunstock placed in the assembly which can be problematic when performing sighting operations. U.S. Pat. No. 4,824,086 to Rickling describes a support with a pair of pivotably mounted jaws that can be independently actuated to clamp a gunstock. Disadvantages exist with Rickling's support as the apparatus requires individual adjustment of each jaw to clamp the gunstock which is onerous and the clamp may not center the gunstock correctly.
A pair of moveably mounted vise jaws such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,861,664 to Durkee addresses some problems inherent in fixed jaw clamping devices. Durkee's disclosure describes a ski clamping device employing a spacing member to equalize clamping pressure. Disadvantages with Durkee's disclosure are apparent as the elongated track required to house engagement nuts, vise jaws and the spacing member is difficult to mount, space consuming on a workbench, and not generally portable. Further, Durkee's clamping device does not retract a ski brake when clamping a ski and is not very versatile as no means are provided to hold a ski by the ski binding or hold objects other than skis.
Hence, in addition to a need for a ski holding apparatus there exists a need to provide an apparatus for securing other sports equipment including snowboards, bicycles and firearms in positions such that maintenance work can readily be accomplished. It may also be desirable to have an apparatus that may be used as a tool for a variety of workshop or household functions, rather than just being useful to hold skis, snowboards, bicycles and firearms. Hence, a further need exists in some applications for a ski, snowboard, bicycle and firearm apparatus having a high degree of versatility, adjustability, and/or adaptability to other non-ski, snowboard, bicycle and firearm uses.
A need therefore exists for an improved sports equipment holding device. Accordingly, a solution that addresses, at least in part, the above and other shortcomings is desired.